• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Reign vs Rule

Pah

Uber all member
I heard the line "You may reign but you do not rule" in a foriegn film last night.

Discuss the differences.
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Interesting.

I guess (without doing any research whatsoever) that you can reign, that is be in a position of authority, without actually exerting any influence, a figure-head like my Queen.

I guess to rule means you reign AND exert power over the populace, like George W. ;)

What's this got to do with religion again?
 

bigvindaloo

Active Member
Pah said:
I heard the line "You may reign but you do not rule" in a foriegn film last night.

Discuss the differences.

Is this a commentary on "free will". I live in a Constitutional democracy. I have free will here, yet I cannot deny my historical roots...to a Queen as Sovereign without power.
 

Djamila

Bosnjakinja
You've all gotten it right. Technically Queen Elizabeth the II is a ruling Queen over much of the former British Empire. Countries like Canada and Australia all have laws on the books allowing the Queen to step in and over-rule the government if she feels its necessary. I'm sure, even if she ever did try, it would never happen - but technically, she is a ruling Queen.

In reality, she's a reigning Queen - like the royal family in Serbia. Then you have royal families, like that in Bosnia, which neither rule or reign. They're normal citizens, its just that everyone knows their heritage.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I thought of it a little more philosophically then that. I took it to mean that we can take on the title of a ruler, but in the end, we can never rule people unless they agree to submit. I thought the phrase was a reminder that power is an illusion. But maybe I'm being a bit obtuse, here. I have that tendancy. *smile*
 

kai

ragamuffin
PureX said:
I thought of it a little more philosophically then that. I took it to mean that we can take on the title of a ruler, but in the end, we can never rule people unless they agree to submit. I thought the phrase was a reminder that power is an illusion. But maybe I'm being a bit obtuse, here. I have that tendancy. *smile*
well you are right of course , most royalty inherit their reign although our queen does not rule you could argue she still wields considerable power so maybe the impression of the monarch not ruling is the illusion
 

Pah

Uber all member
Interesting responses. I took it to mean the individual rules over the individual
 
Top